On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:48:12PM +0200, Christian Fischer wrote: > On Friday September 10 2010 21:36:50 Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:23:30PM +0200, Christian Fischer wrote: > > > I try to get nic bonds working with OpenvSwitch-0.99.2 (XCP-0.5.0). > > > Due to missing xcp administration documentation I've started with the > > > XenServer-5.6 administration guide. > > > > > > There is stated that SLB bonding is an active/active mode. > > > > > > If I create bonds with OpenvSwitch then they are active/passive. > > > > Thanks Ben for the reply. > > > The SLB bonding implemented by Open vSwitch is indeed active/active. > > Please explain why you think that it is active/passive. > > The bond is not reponding to packages arriving eth1, that's why I thought > eth1 > is passive. > > # ovs-appctl bond/show bond0 > updelay: 200 ms > downdelay: 0 ms > next rebalance: 562 ms > slave eth1: enabled > slave eth0: enabled > active slave > hash 44: 1 kB load > 00:15:17:de:dd:c8 > > Is it active/active for sending or for sending and receiving?
It is active/active for sending and receiving. (Packets from any given source MAC are assigned to a particular slave though.) Broadcasts and multicasts are only accepted on the "active slave", however; otherwise such packets would be received in duplicate. And there are a few special rules for similar corner cases, if I recall correctly. > > > I've redundant physical switching for the bond networks, but without > > > spanning tree support (HP 1810G), therefore no inter switch links. If > > > on one side NIC0 active and on the other side NIC1 active then > > > connectivity is broken. Normally i would think that it should be > > > possible to create a trunk between two nodes running identical trunk > > > mode without any switching, in this case there's also no ISL. > > > > I don't understand this paragraph. > > All physical cluster nodes have different physical networks, 2 network > interfaces bonded each. There are two physical switches, the networks have > different VlanIDs. There's no network link between both switches, the > switches have no spanning tree protocol support. The important question here is, are the two links within a bond connected to the same switch? They should be; that is the intended and supported configuration. > Shouldn't both slaves listen for incoming packages? Yes; they do (except for broadcast and multicasts; see above). > What should happen if one connects two hosts with two bonded NICs each > directly without any switches? In other words, host0 has bond0 composed of eth0 and eth1, and host1 has bond1 composed of eth2 and eth3, eth0 is connected to eth2 with a cable, and eth1 is connected to eth3 with a cable? I think that should work OK. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_openvswitch.org
